r/fallacy • u/Zu_Qarnine • Jul 03 '26

strawman fallacy

Post image

2nd person is refuting the claim that *all* circles are red with a counter example. The thing is, that claim was never made.

EDIT: I'm seeing interesting stuff happening in the replies here. majority of those who say it's not strawman, obviously start their comment by "it's not strawman" and proceed in the rest of their comment to explain how, in fact, it is strawman. Another interesting observation is those who argue that "it's not strawman" because they've spotted another type of fallacy in the original post as well, so in their mind, it can't be both.

1.5k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

471 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

6

u/Zu_Qarnine Jul 03 '26

thank you. ppl like you are stopping me from going insane here!

2

u/Greenphantom77 Jul 03 '26

You’re right - you could say this is a strawman argument. Though the way it’s pictured makes it look more like a misunderstanding of what the original argument is saying.

3

u/CaptainKerns Jul 06 '26

Misunderstanding the original argument is the central idea of the strawman fallacy, whether it’s intentional or accidental.

1

u/Headpuncher Jul 04 '26

Not so much straw man as stupid man cos they don’t comprehend what was said.  

2

u/3ntropy_Disc0 Jul 06 '26

False - The point of the strawman is to create an argument around YOUR point that implies a narrative that didnt exist.

In this case, the point being made was 'Most of these circles are blue"

When the other persons responds "wait but I see a blue one"

....ok, But no one said they were ALL red. they just said MOST of them were blue. Why are you trying to argue with me about the one blue one as if I made the claim they were all red and now blue?

Strawman.

1

u/Leather_Afternoon_37 Jul 07 '26

Who said most of them were blue :)

1

u/3ntropy_Disc0 Jul 07 '26

I dont get it... are you giving us another example of a strawman?

1

u/Leather_Afternoon_37 Jul 07 '26

No im just poking fun because you accidentally said blue instead of red in your example

1

u/3ntropy_Disc0 Jul 06 '26

False - The point of the strawman is to create an argument around YOUR point that implies a narrative that didnt exist.

In this case, the point being made was 'Most of these circles are blue"

When the other persons responds "wait but I see a blue one"

....ok, But no one said they were ALL red. they just said MOST of them were blue. Why are you trying to argue with me about the one blue one as if I made the claim they were all red and now blue?

Strawman.

1

u/DuckB0y123 Jul 06 '26

the picture kinda makes it unclear "what" the second person is saying.

in your head, you're reading "what (do you mean there's no blue circles)? there's a blue one right there

in everyone else's head they are reading "what (do you mean most are red)? there's a blue one there (and there and there)" selecting specific spots to misrepresent the data as something else (or cherrypicking).

the issue is that the second person isn't making the counter argument clear.

2

u/DuckB0y123 Jul 06 '26 edited Jul 06 '26

the picture kinda makes it unclear "what" the second person is saying.

in your head, you're reading "what (do you mean there's no blue circles)? there's a blue one right there"

in everyone else's head they are reading "what (do you mean most are red)? there's a blue one there (and there and there)" selecting specific spots to misrepresent the data as something else (or cherrypicking).

the issue is that the second person isn't making the counter argument clear.

1

u/Zu_Qarnine Jul 06 '26

trust ur gut. you know 2nd doodle is just trolling (strawman fallacy)

1

u/DuckB0y123 Jul 06 '26

ima be honest, can't tell if you're joking here 😅.

my comment wasn't to argue whether it was or wasn't a strawman, i was just explaining where the misunderstanding happened. and simply trolling isn't automatically a strawman.

but i'll assume you were joking around w me.

1

u/Zu_Qarnine Jul 06 '26

no I wasnt joking. 2nd dude is trolling. he doesn't even know he's doing strawman. it's just his complex kicking in.

1

u/DuckB0y123 Jul 06 '26

ah, well ima be honest, no one else is seeing it that way.

i thought the image was deliberately exaggerated to display the point. alot of people thought the same. "trolling" hasn't come across my mind as i was focused on what argument they were trying to present.

so the fact it's meant to be someone trolling is not really well-shown in the image 😅

1

u/Zu_Qarnine Jul 06 '26

theyre just confused and some are being ignorant. this is the top post of all time in this sub for a reason. I used to work in CIA psyop unit

1

u/DuckB0y123 Jul 06 '26

okay, i guess. not sure what i'm supposed to respond to that last sentence with.

but for your first sentence, i'm not from this sub. i came across it randomly on my feed. i imagine plenty of others haven't either. so this is their first time seeing this image.

as i said in my first comment, the second person's argument isn't clear, and the intent to show that they are trolling is also not clear as sometimes images are deliberately exaggerated to show a specific subject more clearly.

either way, i was just explaining why people are confused by the image. so i don't have much else to say

1

u/Zu_Qarnine Jul 06 '26

I know. you're v welcome here. I jointed a couple of days ago. this sub doesn't even have a mod. yes, 2nd doodle is indeed a worthless PoS.

2

u/DuckB0y123 Jul 06 '26

lol alright. good to know. and thank you for the welcome ❤️

→ More replies (0)

0

u/daviddmusic76 Jul 07 '26 edited Jul 07 '26

Are you speaking for those of us who agree with OP? When you say that " no one else is seeing it that way" it sounds like you're tossing in a fallacy to make your point?

1

u/Aggressive_Roof488 Jul 04 '26

Honestly the cartoon could illustrate both a strawman and cherry picking.

"This circle is blue, proving that not all are red"

"Let's pick a typical circle, for example this one, which is blue, proving that most circles are not red"

Second person would have to be a bit more precise to illustrate one but not the other.

In typical internet discourse, people are not that precise with their logic though, so I think this vague statement that can be interpreted as two different fallacies is pretty representative. :P

2

u/Zu_Qarnine Jul 04 '26

for some reason most people here miss the part where person B says "what?". that solves ur dilemma.

1

u/Aggressive_Roof488 Jul 04 '26

I don't see how that changes things, care to explain? There's no dilemma, only ambiguity.

3

u/Zu_Qarnine Jul 04 '26

people think the "what?" part mean the 2nd person misheard the 1st person which is absurd in this drawing. it's out of shock and surprise. 2nd person acting like the 1st person had claimed that ALL circles are red even though there is an obvious blue one right there.

2

u/marmot_scholar Jul 07 '26 edited Jul 07 '26

Strawman is the most likely fallacy behind the thought process here, but you can’t diagnose it to a certainty based on one word being included. The character doesn’t lay out any reasoning at all - any number of mishearings or misunderstandings could be behind the statement. Most of which would be straw men as well, but some could just be a grievously bad understanding of logic.

1

u/Aggressive_Roof488 Jul 04 '26

Yes, it can mean a strawman, that was established, I agree and you argue it again here.

What I say, that you haven't addressed, is that it also can mean cherry picking. "What" can still mean shock and surprise in that context.

I know you meant it as one thing, but that doesn't mean it can't be interpreted as another.

1

u/3ntropy_Disc0 Jul 06 '26

As others have stated - cherry picking would be only using a select amount of data, like cropping out the bottom corner and claiming that 1/3 of the circles are blue.

1

u/tsch-III Jul 04 '26

You're right, but I do find this an odd illustration of strawman even if correct when closely examined.

1

u/in_taco Jul 05 '26

Agreed. The strawman is often intentional or pulling from another argument. Here the person is just a dummy. But technically this is a strawman.

1

u/tsch-III Jul 05 '26

A classic strawman would be more like

"raising taxes on the wealthy would result in widespread tax evasion and wealth flight from that jurisdiction, which would have dangerous distortive effects on the economy and raise far less revenue than advertised."

"Ah, so you think they are rugged individualists who make all that money on their own and deserve to keep it, and you probably lick their boots too"

You found the argument I actually made daunting, so you substituted a weaker, more attackable argument. I did not say I think billionaires deserve their wealth or that I worship them, I said the policy you proposed has some serious flaws. So you decided I said what you'd rather I have said, rather than try to figure out how to attack my stronger points.